Claire Byrne Live (RTE1)

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It wasn't trying to set 'best practice' or propose treatment which would have required expertise in certain fields.

It was essentially a vox pop on the issues with talking heads. And Linehan talked some sense about it.

Calm down, you are giving to much importance to this particular segment.

He was setting out what future legislation should be. Maybe I'm strange, but I'd prefer future legislation to be guided by people who actually know something about a topic - either through professional expertise or personal experience.



And it definitely wasn't a 'vox pop'. All the other participants had professional expertise or personal experience.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He was setting out what future legislation should be. Maybe I'm strange, but I'd prefer future legislation to be guided by people who actually know something about a topic - either through professional expertise or personal experience.



And it definitely wasn't a 'vox pop'. All the other participants had professional expertise or personal experience.

So ordinary citizens shouldn't have an opinion on future legislation?

This was a TV programme ffs, it wasn't a cabinet meeting, a legislative gathering...it was an airing of opinions.

We get it, you didn't like his opinion, the sky hasn't fallen in because he aired it. :rolleyes:

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So ordinary citizens shouldn't have an opinion on future legislation?

This was a TV programme ffs, it wasn't a cabinet meeting, a legislative gathering...it was an airing of opinions.

We get it, you didn't like his opinion, the sky hasn't fallen in because he aired it. :rolleyes:

Not sure how many times I need to explain it - there is no problem with him having an opinion. There is a problem with him being presented on a flagship current affairs programme as somehow significant or relevant. This wasn't a chat show, or a Cutting Edge opinion piece. This was current affairs - a factual show. There is no place for opinionated rants.


And you're right, the sky hasn't fallen in. The storm largely passed by overhead without breaking. But there is a huge danger in this kind of 'news'. This is exactly the kind of 'news' that brought you Brexit and Trump.



Do we really want to go there?

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not sure how many times I need to explain it - there is no problem with him having an opinion. There is a problem with him being presented on a flagship current affairs programme as somehow significant or relevant. This wasn't a chat show, or a Cutting Edge opinion piece. This was current affairs - a factual show. There is no place for opinionated rants.


And you're right, the sky hasn't fallen in. The storm largely passed by overhead without breaking. But there is a huge danger in this kind of 'news'. This is exactly the kind of 'news' that brought you Brexit and Trump.



Do we really want to go there?

Oh dear...Trump and Brexit?

He spoke for less than 2 minutes overall, had sensible stuff to say imo, and has contributed to the general debate around this subject.

So what? You don't agree with him. I know I found what he had to say, interesting, as I did the contributions of the others who took part.

There is no qualification necessary that I know about to speak on a current affairs programme on the telly. Can you link to this directive?

After all, 'My god, did you see the members of the public interviewed about the effects of a hard border, shocking!' is hardly going to be the response you will see to that segment of the show.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Oh dear...Trump and Brexit?

He spoke for less than 2 minutes overall, had sensible stuff to say imo, and has contributed to the general debate around this subject.

So what? You don't agree with him. I know I found what he had to say, interesting, as I did the contributions of the others who took part.

There is no qualification necessary that I know about to speak on a current affairs programme on the telly. Can you link to this directive?

After all, 'My god, did you see the members of the public interviewed about the effects of a hard border, shocking!' is hardly going to be the response you will see to that segment of the show.

There was no 'members of the public' segment of the show. All other interviewees were experts by profession or experts by experience - and then we had the comedy writer with the furious typing speed.



And yes, there are directives, like RTE's obligations under the Broadcasting Act;
"fair to all interests concerned" - "presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of his or her own views"


And then there's the RTE's Honesty In Programming policy;
'Highest standard possible' - 'always in the public interest' - 'audience's trust not diminished in any way'.


And then there's the Respect for Diversity policy:



'Must present an inclusive image of Ireland and not exclude marginalised groups'

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There was no 'members of the public' segment of the show. All other interviewees were experts by profession or experts by experience - and then we had the comedy writer with the furious typing speed.

Then we had an interested member of the public - shock horror.

And yes, there are directives, like RTE's obligations under the Broadcasting Act;
"fair to all interests concerned" - "presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of his or her own views"

How was it not fair to all interests concerned? Was Linehan censored? Surely not presenting the objections would be classed as being 'not fair to ALL interests'.

And then there's the RTE's Honesty In Programming policy;
'Highest standard possible' - 'always in the public interest' - 'audience's trust not diminished in any way'.

Again, where was the dishonesty? You were on here complaining about his inclusion before the show.

And then there's the Respect for Diversity policy:



'Must present an inclusive image of Ireland and not exclude marginalised groups'

How were groups 'marginalised' or 'excluded'? You detailed the people involved, those with experience and expertise and an interested member of the public who happens to be a writer.
Where you expecting a onesided soapbox affair?

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Then we had an interested member of the public - shock horror.

How was it not fair to all interests concerned? Was Linehan censored? Surely not presenting the objections would be classed as being 'not fair to ALL interests'.

Again, where was the dishonesty? You were on here complaining about his inclusion before the show.

How were groups 'marginalised' or 'excluded'? You detailed the people involved, those with experience and expertise and an interested member of the public who happens to be a writer.
Where you expecting a onesided soapbox affair?

Except that he's not a member of the public. He's a comedy writer from the UK, where he's lived for a couple of decades. Why would a middle-aged white London male have anything relevant to say about transgender rights in Ireland?


It wasn't fair or honest because he was raising issues about prisons that can't happen here because of the policies of the Irish Prison Service. It wasn't fair because there was no interviewer to challenge him about the two successful years of self-identification in Ireland with zero issues since then.


It further marginalised transgender people by raising these 'bogeymen' issues that haven't occured in Ireland and largely, can't occur in Ireland because of the different regulations here.


I've no problem with a balanced debate involving people with experience or expertise in the issue. The London comedy writer had neither.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except that he's not a member of the public. He's a comedy writer from the UK, where he's lived for a couple of decades. Why would a middle-aged white London male have anything relevant to say about transgender rights in Ireland?


It wasn't fair or honest because he was raising issues about prisons that can't happen here because of the policies of the Irish Prison Service. It wasn't fair because there was no interviewer to challenge him about the two successful years of self-identification in Ireland with zero issues since then.


It further marginalised transgender people by raising these 'bogeymen' issues that haven't occured in Ireland and largely, can't occur in Ireland because of the different regulations here.


I've no problem with a balanced debate involving people with experience or expertise in the issue. The London comedy writer had neither.

You certainly do have a problem. You don't like 'comedy writers from London'.(is that meant to a disparaging remark, because I am not quite sure what it's relevance is.)

I suggest calming down a bit, the sky hasn't fallen in because someone gave their opinion on a TV show.
And does your stance here mean that nobody who lives outside Ireland has a right to contribute to debate in Ireland? Is that not a bit parochial and insular?

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You certainly do have a problem. You don't like 'comedy writers from London'.(is that meant to a disparaging remark, because I am not quite sure what it's relevance is.)

I suggest calming down a bit, the sky hasn't fallen in because someone gave their opinion on a TV show.
And does your stance here mean that nobody who lives outside Ireland has a right to contribute to debate in Ireland? Is that not a bit parochial and insular?

The 'relevance' of the 'comedy writer from London' is the repeated reminder of the irrelevance of Linehan to this issue in Ireland. It's like asking rural cyclists from Clare who never come to Dublin to comment on the M50 traffic chaos.


This isn't 'a TV show'. This is the flagship current affairs shows. It's not a show for 'opinions'. It is a show for facts and lived experiences.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The 'relevance' of the 'comedy writer from London' is the repeated reminder of the irrelevance of Linehan to this issue in Ireland. It's like asking rural cyclists from Clare who never come to Dublin to comment on the M50 traffic chaos.


This isn't 'a TV show'. This is the flagship current affairs shows. It's not a show for 'opinions'. It is a show for facts and lived experiences.

He is irrelevant for you, because you have your mind made up on the issues involved.

He isn't irrelevant to everyone.
Your childish jibe at his profession is just that, childish petulance. I suggest you grow up a bit, in the real world there are many opinions, just argue you position without the attempts at demeaning your opposition.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He is irrelevant for you, because you have your mind made up on the issues involved.

He isn't irrelevant to everyone.
Your childish jibe at his profession is just that, childish petulance. I suggest you grow up a bit, in the real world there are many opinions, just argue you position without the attempts at demeaning your opposition.

I'm not demeaning him. He's written some great comedy in the past. Comedy writers are good at writing comedy.


They're not great for contributing to news/current affairs shows on issues that they have no experience of or expertise in.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm not demeaning him. He's written some great comedy in the past. Comedy writers are good at writing comedy.


They're not great for contributing to news/current affairs shows on issues that they have no experience of or expertise in.

I have no expertise or experience of divorce, am I or anyone similar barred from giving an opinion?

Had the show pretended that they were presenting experts, you would have a point. But imo the views of interested persons are a part of current affairs. Have you ever watched similar programmes?
Something tells me you haven't because it is common on social issues.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no expertise or experience of divorce, am I or anyone similar barred from giving an opinion?

Have you been invited on Prime Time much recently?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Had the show pretended that they were presenting experts, you would have a point. But imo the views of interested persons are a part of current affairs. Have you ever watched similar programmes?
Something tells me you haven't because it is common on social issues.

What other Prime Time episodes have interviewed people with no expertise and no experience in the topic?

Or indeed, which primetime episodes have interviewed people who live in England?

That seems to bother you an awful lot as well.

elperello

I saw two Irish nurses living in London interviewed on the RTE news tonight.
They were part of a demo in support of the forthcoming nurses strike.

I think it's ok for Irish people living abroad to be vocal about issues in Ireland

AndrewJRenko

elperello wrote: »

I saw two Irish nurses living in London interviewed on the RTE news tonight.
They were part of a demo in support of the forthcoming nurses strike.

I think it's ok for Irish people living abroad to be vocal about issues in Ireland

Mmmm, nurses speaking about a nurses strike. I'm not quite sure I see the parallel with a comedy writer speaking about transgender rights?

elperello

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Mmmm, nurses speaking about a nurses strike. I'm not quite sure I see the parallel with a comedy writer speaking about transgender rights?

Granted it's not a parallel but living abroad does not disqualify any Irish citizen from participating in media discussions about matters of concern.

Just because someone lives in another country doesn't mean they don't have an opinion about public issues in Ireland.

FrancieBrady

+ the divorce, SSM and Abortion debates would have been very tame had they only had the opinion of experts and experienced.

AndrewJRenko

elperello wrote: »

Granted it's not a parallel but living abroad does not disqualify any Irish citizen from participating in media discussions about matters of concern.

Just because someone lives in another country doesn't mean they don't have an opinion about public issues in Ireland.

This isn't about Linehan 'having an opinion'. He's welcome to have his opinion. He's welcome to speak his opinion.

The issue is about choosing him to speak on the public broadcaster's flagship current affairs show, to speak about something that he has no expertise or experience in.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

+ the divorce, SSM and Abortion debates would have been very tame had they only had the opinion of experts and experienced.

Did Prime Time invite people who had no experience or expertise to cover any of those topics? At least where politicians are involved, they have some kind of representative mandate.

But not our Graham.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This isn't about Linehan 'having an opinion'. He's welcome to have his opinion. He's welcome to speak his opinion.

The issue is about choosing him to speak on the public broadcaster's flagship current affairs show, to speak about something that he has no expertise or experience in.

But has an informed opinion on. Happens all the time.

I don't have to nor do I necessarily agree with him, but he knew how to articulate what his thinking was and made sense.
You do know that a certain amount of rational capability is assumed on shows like this after the watershed?

elperello

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This isn't about Linehan 'having an opinion'. He's welcome to have his opinion. He's welcome to speak his opinion.

The issue is about choosing him to speak on the public broadcaster's flagship current affairs show, to speak about something that he has no expertise or experience in.

You said -

" He's a comedy writer from the UK, where he's lived for a couple of decades. Why would a middle-aged white London male have anything relevant to say about transgender rights in Ireland?"

He is obviously not from the UK, he is an Irishman.
You made an issue of his residence separate to his expertise and experience.

I have no problem with him being on the show.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But has an informed opinion on. Happens all the time.

I don't have to nor do I necessarily agree with him, but he knew how to articulate what his thinking was and made sense.
You do know that a certain amount of rational capability is assumed on shows like this after the watershed?

Since when is 'an informed opinion' the threshold to get on Prime Time? Can you identify other cases where this has happened on Prime Time?

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Since when is 'an informed opinion' the threshold to get on Prime Time? Can you identify other cases where this has happened on Prime Time?

Yes, off the top of my head Fintan O'Toole has been on it, on a host of topics which he has an opinion on. As have other writers.

Can you show us an actual 'threshold' that exists to be 'asked' on to a segment investigating the issues around something?
They would be failing my idea of a balanced current affairs show if they didn't attempt to represent all opinion. And like it or not the jury is out on aspects of this.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, off the top of my head Fintan O'Toole has been on it, on a host of topics which he has an opinion on. As have other writers.

Can you show us an actual 'threshold' that exists to be 'asked' on to a segment investigating the issues around something?
They would be failing my idea of a balanced current affairs show if they didn't attempt to represent all opinion. And like it or not the jury is out on aspects of this.

Have you been invited on Prime Time much? Would you be happy if they invited me on?

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you been invited on Prime Time much? Would you be happy if they invited me on?

If you knew what you were talking about...no problem whatsoever. And yes, I have taken part in current affairs radio programmes on topics I have interest in.

What is your point here?
Have you seen O'Toole on these type of segments? I have seen talk on Housing, Finance, Northern Ireland, Film Industry etc etc. He has 'opinions' on all of that but would not have qualifications in them.

I get the impression you have only tuned into current affairs programmes because your pet topic was on and Linehan has an opposing view to you.

AndrewJRenko

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you knew what you were talking about...no problem whatsoever. And yes, I have taken part in current affairs radio programmes on topics I have interest in.

What is your point here?
Have you seen O'Toole on these type of segments? I have seen talk on Housing, Finance, Northern Ireland, Film Industry etc etc. He has 'opinions' on all of that but would not have qualifications in them.

I get the impression you have only tuned into current affairs programmes because your pet topic was on and Linehan has an opposing view to you.

But you haven't been on Prime Time, right? No, neither have I, regardless of how opinionated I am.

With a professional journalist like O'toole, you get some analysis, some context, some additional history - we got none of that from Glinner, just a mad rant, a completely inappropriate comparison to bulemia and some furious typing.

FrancieBrady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But you haven't been on Prime Time, right? No, neither have I, regardless of how opinionated I am.

With a professional journalist like O'toole, you get some analysis, some context, some additional history - we got none of that from Glinner, just a mad rant, a completely inappropriate comparison to bulemia and some furious typing.

This is the real world, like it or not, Linehan's name has purchase. People like him will be sought out if they have a stance.
This wasn't a debate on a referendum, it was a segment designed to flesh out to an unaware audience, what the issues are.
I am long enough in the tooth to know that one person's rant is another's rational opinion. The remit is and should be, to air all views.

Atlantic Dawn

Tonights show, Farage features....
https://twitter.com/ClaireByrneLive/status/1089994651254296577

AllForIt

Bit of a coup for RTE to get Denis Fergus on. And with Farage, a must watch.